Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 The examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art
2 at the time the invention as made would have been motivated to
3 select an epoxy resin and a curative such that the adhesive formed
4 has the claimed viscosity of 1,000 to 10,000 cps at 40°C for at
5 least 20 minutes. According to the examiner, De Keyser describes
6 the optimization of the viscosity for the application of thin
7 films, the avoidance of excessive viscosity, and the use of low
8 viscosity adhesives to manufacture thin adhesive film laminates.
9 (Examiner’s Answer, Page 9, first paragraph).
10 The examiner has further found that it would have been
11 obvious to press laminate films together using cylinders as it was
12 well known in the art to laminate films, e.g. by using rolls to
13 improve bonding. (Examiner’s Answer, pages 9-10).
14 ii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claim 27
15 a) Isocyanate Functionalized Compounds
16 The appellant initially urges that the limitation “said
17 adhesive formulation being essentially free of solvent, water, and
18 isocyanate-functionalized compounds” is not met (Appeal Brief,
19 page 5, lines 19-20). The rationale is that the “preferred”
20 adhesive of the primary reference teaches away from the claimed
21 limitation; the examiner has given no justification in “ignoring”
22 this important teaching, and this is impermissible picking and
23 choosing based on hindsight. (Id., page 6, lines 1-6).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007